The Death of Pretty (an article on how many women want to be seen now)

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
lil_flower_luv said:
The world has sin. Corruption. Human beings are fallible.

I could reply to your “Men should treat all women like ladies” with “Women should treat all men like gentlemen.”

Have you ever read Proverbs chapter 30 entitled, “The Ideal Wife,” or are you a feminist? Men and women are equally called to the equal kind of respect God had given them at Creation. So enough with the strawman.
Click to expand...
Yes, the world has sin, nothing new. There has been sin since the Fall.

Everyone should treat other people with respect, it should not be gender specific.

Nothing wrong about being a feminist, male or female. Feminists got women the vote. I have noticed the glib use of the term’ strawman’ arguement.
 
chevalier said:
**I guess it’s best to clarify. We have a history of each interpreting the same words differently. 😉

**

Like always in history, I guess.

Nope, not at all. Both men and women, when they dress themselves in ways that objectify their bodies, appear to diminish their values. Chippendale is not a respectable profession for a man, is it? If a man dresses himself like a gigolo, he does appear to diminish his value. This has nothing to do with male domination of women, discrimination etc.

We are to respect the prostitute. Does that mean the prostitute is a fine, viable career of choice (except that it has little to do with career choice in most actual cases)? Not at all. It’s the same with clothing that way crosses the line in bringing out sexual associations. Respect the person but you really don’t need to respect the clothing, let alone validate it or pretend everything’s okay.

In terms of racism or some kind of social ideology where unless you’re born into the right caste you’re a nothing, yes. On the other hand, while only God knows the hearts of men, men know the actions of men, and having a reputation is a natural consequence of one’s actions and choices, some of which are more honourable, some less. Taking away people’s property detracts from reputation. Abusing others physically detracts from reputation. Living an immoral lifestyle detracts from reputation. Everybody is equal, but not every choice everybody makes is equal.
Click to expand...
“What do you* really* mean by the what the definition of is is?”
 
lil_flower_luv said:
Yes, that’s a big one as well. Don’t women kind of make themselves “less worthy” when they choose to dress immodestly? So much so that men can reduce them to a piece of meat with one glance? I’d prefer to be a human being over a ham sandwich. 🙂
Click to expand...
That is judgemental to say the least. Who decides about what a person puts on and a person’s intent? Women ‘make themselves unworthy’? It is so wrong to reduce a woman to a piece of meat and also wrong to say that the woman deserves it.
 
Walking_Home said:
It is people being “taught” to view them as less worthy. Either continue to “teach” this violence against women — making them into a “piece of meat” – or break the cycle and teach that they are not less worthy and lesser value.
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
severus68 said:
That is judgemental to say the least. Who decides about what a person puts on and a person’s intent? Women ‘make themselves unworthy’? It is so wrong to reduce a woman to a piece of meat and also wrong to say that the woman deserves it.
Click to expand...
No, it’s not judgemental to say that dressing to arouse the general public is a sin. Because it is. The fact that we don’t know the person’s heart, that it is we don’t know the level of subjective culpability (intent, knowledge), on the material level, it is a violation of moral law.

Also, while yes, we don’t know the heart, the presumption that an adult’s behaviour conforms to his intent is not an unreasonable one. In fact, we wouldn’t have much of a criminal law if it were unreasonable.
 
chevalier said:
No, it’s not judgemental to say that dressing to arouse the general public is a sin. Because it is. The fact that we don’t know the person’s heart, that it is we don’t know the level of subjective culpability (intent, knowledge), on the material level, it is a violation of moral law.

Also, while yes, we don’t know the heart, the presumption that an adult’s behaviour conforms to his intent is not an unreasonable one. In fact, we wouldn’t have much of a criminal law if it were unreasonable.
Click to expand...
In your first sentence you have made the presumption of a woman dressing to arouse someone. I assume you did not mean ‘the general public’. That in itself is wrong. It is not like saying “I think that woman likes dogs” seeing a woman wearing a t-shirt with a picture of a dog on it.
Do you really think it is ok to say that a woman has reduced herself to a ‘piece of meat’ by her ‘immodest’ dress? Anyone who reduces a woman to a piece of meat or says that a woman is reduced to a piece of meat by her dressing, has issues. Is it ok to rape a prostitute who does dress to attract men, then?
Where I am, it is “beyond a reasonable doubt” for criminal law".
 
lil_flower_luv said:
I didn’t want to bite, but this thread has gotten quite a bit out of control. I cannot allow Catholics to talk about modesty, innocence, and integrity in such a brash, flippant, New Age way. Modesty or innocence or our gosh-darn Female Mystique is not to be regarded as a “fashion statement” - something I may or may not put on today, depending on whether or not I have the shoes to match…**IN FACT, these things are crowns of glory in Heaven! **

If it’s something that is worshiped on Earth, you can be assured it is not to be found with God. Don’t know what I mean? “Flaunt it if you got it” “Whatever works for you and strokes YOUR ego” “It’s the men who are guilty, not the women” …and all the other garbage the world feeds us. If you want to be treated like a lady, ACT like one! WE call our men to a higher level of respect, as they call us! Stop listening to the world, the flesh and the Devil.
Click to expand...
This is what happens when people jump in on a thread they haven’t been following 100% from the beginning.

All I meant from the above statement was that everyone is equally responsible for their sins. And this was a response to a poster who said that people who have more influence on others have a greater responsibility to be virtuous than the rest of us. This is not so. We ALL have that responsibility, and we all have it equally.

I never said, in this entire thread, that dressing immodestly was good, or not sinful. Please do not accuse me of such, and please do not make claims when you haven’t been following a thread all the way and thus don’t know what you are talking about.
 
chevalier said:
No, it’s not judgemental to say that dressing to arouse the general public is a sin. Because it is. The fact that we don’t know the person’s heart, that it is we don’t know the level of subjective culpability (intent, knowledge), on the material level, it is a violation of moral law.

Also, while yes, we don’t know the heart, the presumption that an adult’s behaviour conforms to his intent is not an unreasonable one. In fact, we wouldn’t have much of a criminal law if it were unreasonable.
Click to expand...
Chavalier, I think what Severus and Walking Home are trying to say is that, contrary to the rash statement by another poster here (lil flower), we should strive to treat EVERYONE with respect… Regardless of what they are wearing. That is not saying that it isn’t wrong to purposely try to make people lust. But just because someone does something wrong, it does not mean we have the right to treat them badly. We would be doing something wrong OURSELVES if we did.

For example:

A woman who goes to the grocery store in short shorts and a tank top - should she still be treated like a person, made in the image and likeness of God? Absolutely. Do we have some sort of moral right to treat her as anything less? Absolutely not.

A man who goes to the grocery store in short shorts and a tank top - should he still be treated like a person, made in the image and likeness of God? Absolutely. Do we have some sort of moral right to treat him as anything less? Absolutely not.

Now, did this man and woman wear those clothes purposely to make people lust? Perhaps, or perhaps not. (I’ve gone into a grocery store wearing such when I was coming back from a park, and my intention wasn’t to make anyone lust, neither did I think I looked immodest in the least bit.) It is God’s judgement to make, and God will judge them fairly. And what is OUR part in this? Our part is to treat them both like human person’s, regardless of what they were wearing, or of what sin they may or may not have committed.

Do you disagree with that?
 
lil_flower_luv said:
If you want to be treated like a lady, ACT like one! WE call our men to a higher level of respect, as they call us!
Click to expand...
Lil Flower, I have a question for you.

If a woman does not act in accordance to your definition of a lady, (let’s say she’s wearing a mini skirt with a red spaghetti strapped tank top) how do you think she should be treated?

Who/what do you think she should be treated like, if you don’t think she should be treated like a lady regardless?

And this question applies to men as well, of course. If a man is wearing something you consider immodest, how should he be treated, if not like a gentleman?
 
CatholicFireman said:
I’ve been reading the thread (not jumping in in the middle 😉 ). I just thought this article might pertain to the OP:

abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/01/colorado-student-banned-from-yearbook-over-racy-photo/

Just something for discussion. Now to avoid being sucked into the vacuum…bye!
Click to expand...
I don’t see why she doesn’t just give them another picture of herself to put in, rather than going through all the work of fighting to keep that one specifically.
 
Debora123 said:
I don’t see why she can’t just give them another picture of herself to put in, rather than going through all the work of fighting to keep that one specifically.
Click to expand...
Exactly! I just don’t get it…

Maybe she’s trying to extend her 15 minutes of fame. 🤷
 
CatholicFireman said:
Exactly! I just don’t get it…
Click to expand...
Perhaps she was offended that her picture was taken out, which I can understand if she genuinely sees nothing wrong with it.

Either way, the easier thing to do would be to just say “ok, well then here’s another picture for the year book.”

Oh well. I guess we haven’t heard her side of the story.
 
Debora123 said:
Perhaps she was offended that her picture was taken out, which I can understand if she genuinely sees nothing wrong with it.

Either way, the easier thing to do would be to just say “ok, well then here’s another picture for the year book.”

Oh well. I guess we haven’t heard her side of the story.
Click to expand...
They gave the opportunity to retake the photo. That’s why I don’t get the whole lawsuit thing.

My wife used to work on the yearbook commity (way back when 😉 ) and she said they should just give her a year book with her photo and make the rest without. I could see her having a problem with that too, but it’s better than nothing.
 
CatholicFireman said:
My wife used to work on the yearbook commity (way back when 😉 ) and she said they should just give her a year book with her photo and make the rest without. I could see her having a problem with that too, but it’s better than nothing.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it would have been a good idea to at least give her that option.
 
Debora123 said:
Chavalier, I think what Severus and Walking Home are trying to say is that, contrary to the rash statement by another poster here (lil flower), we should strive to treat EVERYONE with respect… Regardless of what they are wearing. That is not saying that it isn’t wrong to purposely try to make people lust. But just because someone does something wrong, it does not mean we have the right to treat them badly. We would be doing something wrong OURSELVES if we did.

For example:

A woman who goes to the grocery store in short shorts and a tank top - should she still be treated like a person, made in the image and likeness of God? Absolutely. Do we have some sort of moral right to treat her as anything less? Absolutely not.

A man who goes to the grocery store in short shorts and a tank top - should he still be treated like a person, made in the image and likeness of God? Absolutely. Do we have some sort of moral right to treat him as anything less? Absolutely not.

Now, did this man and woman wear those clothes purposely to make people lust? Perhaps, or perhaps not. (I’ve gone into a grocery store wearing such when I was coming back from a park, and my intention wasn’t to make anyone lust, neither did I think I looked immodest in the least bit.) It is God’s judgement to make, and God will judge them fairly. And what is OUR part in this? Our part is to treat them both like human person’s, regardless of what they were wearing, or of what sin they may or may not have committed.

Do you disagree with that?
Click to expand...
Well said Debora,👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top